1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff served in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Traffic Management Department from July 14, 2011 to January 22, 2013.

On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) around 09:30, the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-gu Seoul Western-gu 273-10, the second floor traffic control office of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-gu, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Western-gu, for the reason that the Defendant did not control traffic, there was a assault case, such as cutting off b, bating and shabing bat one another.

On March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 500,00,000 from Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 201Da1180 decided March 27, 2013.

On March 28, 2013, the defendant issued a reprimand against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff violated Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act, and the plaintiff raised an appeal (see Articles 13 and 20-2 of the Local Public Officials Act) seeking revocation of the above disposition against the local appeals review committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

On May 28, 2013, Article 9(2) of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Rules on the Determination of Disciplinary Action against Local Public Officials, Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Regulations on the Disposition of Preliminary Administrative Exemption and Public Officials' Warning, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition"), with respect to the grounds for the "non-written warning" disposition of the above reprimand, the local appeals review committee modified the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition"), and sent the said decision to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2013.

[Based on the recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleading as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 7, and the purport of the entire pleading is merely an act of b’s act, such as drinking b, as a part of self-defense.

Therefore, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act does not violate the duty to maintain dignity as an act that prevents illegality.

As such, the Defendant issued a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff even though there is no ground for the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the instant disposition ought to be revoked.